Periodicals Evanghelia Stead

Reconsidering ‘Little’ versus ‘Big’ Periodicals Evanghelia Stead Journal of European Periodical Studies, 1.2 (Winter 2016) ISSN 2506-6587 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21825/jeps.v1i2.3860 Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence The Journal of European Periodical Studies is hosted by Ghent University Website: ojs.ugent.be/jeps To cite this article: Evanghelia Stead, ‘Reconsidering “Little” versus “Big” Periodicals’, Journal of European Periodical Studies, 1.2 (Winter 2016), 1–17 Reconsidering ‘Little’ versus ‘Big’ Periodicals Evanghelia Stead University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin (UVSQ) Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Launching the special issue, this introduction posits the strong contrast between ‘little’ and ‘big’ periodicals in historical context and within languages, primarily the ‘petite revue’ in French and the ‘little magazine’ in English. Referring to key texts, it looks at the historical birth of this antagonism and examines various uses of the terms that foster an enduring critical category. It stresses the implications of such terminology and addresses some queries. Asking what makes such expressions so resilient, it briefly presents recent scholarly responses to outright rivalry, and concentrates on the way this special issue tackles the topic. KEYWORDS petite revue, little magazine, France, Britain 1 Reconsidering ‘Little’ versus ‘Big’ Periodicals Small is deemed beautiful, small is choice, synonymous with rare, selective, superior. It goes with the young, the bold, the new, and the daring. It is meant for the rare few, capable of empathetic appreciation, who understand. Big is massive and weighty, grand without being great. The established and the widespread, destined for the bourgeois, predictable, unadventurous, and conservative, are fuddy-duddy. Little is brave and avant-garde; big is deemed as gutless as it is spiritless. Appreciation and evaluation of periodicals have long thrived on these rudimentary differences, if not oppositions, shaping accounts and depictions, stories of decline or development, and assessments of feats or failures. Likewise, methodologies, still used in periodical studies, have often been influenced by similar strong contrasts. The very idea of ‘small but beautiful’ refers, however, to precise objects in historical context and within languages, primarily the ‘petite revue’ in French and the ‘little magazine’ in English. Both the ‘petite revue’ and the ‘little magazine’ are related to innovative trends such as symbolism, decadence, avant-garde, Dada, modernism, surrealism, etc. Inevitably though, ‘little review’ and ‘little magazine’ make us think of the periodical field in terms of a rivalry between bulky and reputable publications and small and newfangled ones, striving for recognition. Although recent scholarship has probed this clear-cut antagonism, particularly in Anglophone publications, for a long time critical positions have been very different and their impact is felt even today. In French criticism, the ‘petite revue’ is still a notion widely used with no reservations. This special issue on little, and not so little, periodicals from the turn of the century to the 1930s sets out therefore to problematize the dominant paradigm of ‘little’ versus ‘big’. The notion of ‘little’ reviews and magazines being prevalent in Francophone and Anglophone periodical studies, the five articles offered are based on cases precisely from these areas. Before presenting them in detail, however, it is necessary to put facts and expressions into perspective. This introduction takes a closer look at the historical birth of the ‘little’ versus ‘big’ antagonism by referring to key texts, and draws attention to emotional vocabulary, to uses of language disclosing doubt as to the right word, and to terms fostering unquestioned and enduring critical categories. It stresses the implications of such terminology and gauges its outcome by addressing some puzzles. While asking what makes such expressions so resilient, it briefly presents recent scholarly responses to such forthright rivalry and concentrates on the way this special issue intends to tackle the topic. ‘Petites Revues’ and ‘Little Magazines’ The term ‘petite revue’ [little review] first gained official entry to the literary field at the very moment one century yielded itself to the next: precisely in 1900, Les Petites revues became the title of the first French directory of avant-garde periodicals largely linked to symbolism, compiled by Remy de Gourmont, by then a major Mercure de France critic, involved in many periodical ventures.1 Gourmont’s name, absent from the cover and title page, ratifies the preface, but his authorship has been repeatedly certified,2 although his attitude endorses a certain distance. His booklet accounted for the abundance of literature and art reviews born in France mainly from 1880, and listed some 130 titles to be enriched further. Although Gourmont indicated that the 1 Les Petites revues: Essai de bibliographie, preface by Remy de Gourmont (Paris: Librairie du Mercure de France, 1900, republished Paris: Ent’revues, 1992). On Gourmont and reviews, see Alexia Kalantzis, e Remy de Gourmont créateur de formes: Dépassement du genre littéraire et modernisme à l’aube du XX siècle (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2012). 2 Karl D. Uitti, La Passion littéraire de Remy de Gourmont (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962), p. 294. 2 Journal of European Periodical Studies 1.2 ‘little review’ phenomenon dated back to romanticism (mentioning, among others, La Petite revue in which Baudelaire had published), his brochure authenticated a complex editorial and generational phenomenon based on new legislative and institutional frameworks, and indebted to substantial technical innovations. Indeed, between June and July 1880, three laws profoundly changed the right to expression and education in France. On 16 June 1880, primary education became compulsory, and on 30 June 1880 the right to hold public meetings without prior authorization was recognized. Additionally, the 29 July 1880 Freedom of the Press Act abolished the restrictions on the book trade, printing, and the periodical press. On the technical side, inexpensive paper, the rotary press, and the halftone block had already made printing cheaper. Photomechanical printing was to further enhance combinations of text and image without the need for engraving. Thus, any ambitious and imaginative writer or artist could publish a periodical thanks to a simple declaration, without prior permission or need for a ‘dépôt de cautionnement’ [security deposit].3 Thirty years later, in an Anglo-American context, Ezra Pound’s snappy ‘Small Magazines’ attempted to map the field in a comparable way to Gourmand.4 Pound is akin to Gourmont as the guiding, sponsoring, and manoeuvring spirit of many periodical ventures. The phenomenon he labelled was still in full growth, as had been the case with Gourmont. However, rather than establishing a list as Gourmont did, his article’s aim was twofold: to provoke full recognition of the ‘little magazine’ as modernist literature gathered momentum, and to signal some of its leading titles and promoters. While the time gap between Gourmont and Pound reflects a historical discrepancy traditionally observed between the French fin de siècle (concentrated in the last twenty years of the nineteenth century) and Anglo-American modernism (favouring 1910–30 and beyond), comparing Gourmont and Pound is informative. If recent scholarship has bridged the time disparity by considering the periodical avant-garde movement as an overall international phenomenon from the 1880s onwards, still ‘no one has ever quite been sure where the term [little magazine] came from’.5 In 1930 Pound did not take it from Gourmont, but the debts of Anglo-American modernism to France are obvious in his pages. Moreover, from 1915 he had often written on Gourmont whom he also translated.6 By highlighting the term in his title, he must have intended his essay to match and rival this older French precedent that had set the tone. Revealingly, French ‘petites revues’ and Anglo-American ‘little magazines’ turn out to be the principle contributors to contemporary scholarly classification insofar as the opposition ‘little’ versus ‘big’ has been recorded. A ‘kleine Zeitschrift’ category does not prevail in German periodical criticism, although periodicals corresponding to the notion are not a rarity. For instance, Der Zwiebelfisch (1909–33 and 1934–48), finely printed by Poeschel and Trepte in Leipzig, touts the notion in its very subtitle, ‘eine kleine Zeitschrift für Buchwesen und Typographie’ [A Small Magazine for Book-Keeping and Typography], but German scholarly vocabulary has not followed suit. Language choices are nuanced in Portuguese: a Pequena revista (1893–?) was published in Coimbra by Carlos de Lemos, the co-founder with his wife and writer Beatriz Pinheiro of Ave Azul (1899–1900), a well-known art and literature avant-garde magazine. And the 3 See Raymond Bachollet, ‘Le catalogue des journaux satiriques’, Le Collectionneur français, no. 175 ( January 1981), 16–17. 4 Ezra Pound, ‘Small Magazines’, English Journal, 19.9 (November 1930), 689–704. 5 Ian Hamilton, The Little Magazines: A Study of Six Editors (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1976), p. 7. 6 See Richard Sieburth, Instigations: Ezra Pound and Remy de Gourmont (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Remy de Gourmont’s translations by Pound include

Load more